There are three things you might not know about Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor who obtained an absurd indictment against Rick Perry:

McCrum is a party to a pending appeal regarding whether he might be held in contempt of court for allegedly “encouraging a witness to refrain from appearing in court and avoiding subpoena by the State” (according to the Bexar County District Attorney).

Although McCrum is being portrayed as a “Republican” by some hack Democrat shills, he has been described by one supporter as a “Democrat” — and his only contribution to a candidate for political office was to a Congressional Democrat.

McCrum gave a $500 donation to the judge who appointed him as special prosecutor, before the appointment.

ALLEGATIONS THAT McCRUM ENCOURAGED A WITNESS TO AVOID TESTIMONY IN COURT

Let’s start with the allegation that McCrum, while a defense attorney, encouraged a witness to avoid testimony against his client. In January, mysanantonio.com reported on the controversy:

Much of the matter revolves around whether Melanie Little, who worked at Starlite Recovery Center in Boerne, was under subpoena and whether Alcala had dismissed her completely from the October intoxication manslaughter trial of Taylor Rae Rosenbusch. Little testified for the defense during the punishment phase.

Prosecutors allege McCrum told Little afterward not to come back to court and to turn off her phone because she was not under subpoena.

He also suggested she leave the area, because “the DA was out for blood” and “wanted Taylor to be put away for a long time,” the contempt motion alleges.

McCrum’s lawyers argue the trial record shows Alcala dismissed Little and didn’t tell her she could be recalled.

“Mr. McCrum did not misrepresent anything to the court, nor did he say anything to the witness that would cause her to ignore an instruction from the court,” Stevens said during last week.

The article said that McCrum was appealing, and that the appellate court had stayed the contempt proceedings. In late February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in McCrum’s favor based on a technicality: lack of jurisdiction. The opinion does not indicate that McCrum denied the allegations that he told the witness to go home, only that he contended the court had lost jurisdiction over the case before starting the contempt proceedings.

The Bexar County District Attorney said in a press release on March 5, 2014:

In January of this year, the trial court directed the State to file a Motion for Contempt against McCrum based on allegations that McCrum engaged in improper conduct allegedly encouraging a witness to refrain from appearing in court and avoiding subpoena by the State. The contempt proceedings had already begun when McCrum filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Fourth Court asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Last week, the Fourth Court ruled in McCrum’s favor and the State is seeking review of that decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

On that same day, March 5, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals entered an order (.pdf) staying the decision of the 4th District Court of Appeals and inviting further briefing on the matter. The docket for the appeal to the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals shows that the writ proceeding appears to be pending at this time.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this. What McCrum is alleged to have done is subverting justice. Like the Perry indictment, it’s about twisting or hiding facts rather than seeking the truth.

McCRUM: A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS DONATED TO A CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT

Today, Byron York linked an amusing video of a hack Democrat trying to portray McCrum as a Republican. The head of “Texans for Public Justice” responds to the allegation that this is a “partisan witch hunt” by saying “nothing could be closer to the truth.” (Yes, he said “closer.” Paging Dr. Freud!)

Hilarious. But on a more serious note, this partisan shill also claims that McCrum is a “Republican.” That does not seem to square with what I have read.

I have not found any news articles that specifically say whether McCrum is a Republican or a Democrat. A profile in the San Antonio Express portrays McCrum as a “thorough, dogged attorney” without a political axe to grind. A similarly flattering profile in the Dallas Morning News paints McCrum as a serious attorney who lacks partisanship. These warm portrayals of McCrum certainly seem undermined by the indictment, which is a hack piece of work that has been universally derided by Democrats and Republicans alike as wholly lacking in merit and an obvious political hit job.

Let’s look beyond the glowing lefty media portrayals and focus on the facts.

Mike McCrum’s recent announcement that he was withdrawing his name from consideration for the San Antonio U.S. attorney’s post underscores the fact that whatever the cause of the political logjam, it simply has to end.

McCrum — a first-rate, prosecutor-first-Democrat-second lawyer — withdrew his name even though he seemed to be the pick of Democrats and Republicans. He had been on hold too long without the ability to take on new cases, which was anathema to his legal practice and bringing home the bacon.

But that does not tell the whole story, because McCrum has donated to two Republicans as well. However, those donations arguably reveal nothing about his politics — because the Republicans were not politicians, but judges. The Dallas Morning News piece linked above gives more details:

According to campaign finance records, McCrum has made only a handful of contributions to state and federal candidates.

He gave $300 in 2007 to Steve Hilbig, a Republican judge on the state appeals court based in San Antonio.

Also that year, McCrum donated $500 to U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, a San Antonio Democrat.

In the next paragraph, the paper details one other contribution to a Republican judge. But that contribution deserves more than passing mention, so hold tight while I insert another section heading:

McCRUM DONATED TO THE VERY JUDGE WHO APPOINTED HIM AS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Here’s the next paragraph of that Dallas Morning News profile:

The next year [2008], he [McCrum] contributed $500 to Republican Robert “Bert” Richardson, a Bexar County district court judge. Richardson assigned McCrum as the special prosecutor after a watchdog group filed its abuse-of-office complaint against Perry.

So, the judge who appointed McCrum as the special prosecutor had taken money from McCrum in the past.

Now, let’s be clear: there’s nothing inherently unethical about this. Judges hear matters by attorneys who have donated to them all the time. Depending on the amount of the donation and the length of time between the donation and the proceeding, the judge may or may not choose to disclose the donation. Judges typically don’t recuse themselves due to such donations. My guess is that McCrum’s donation and Judge Richardson’s appointment each reflect an admiration that one holds for the other. I question the judgment of anyone who could admire a prosecutor who has brought such a patently abusive indictment. But I don’t mean to insinuate that this is any kind of conflict of interest or violation of ethics.

I do find it interesting, however — and worth passing along to you, the reader . . . for what it’s worth.

None of this really changes my mind about McCrum. I am still disgusted by his actions in indicting Perry, and it doesn’t really matter to me whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat. It matters to me a little bit whether he is a conscientious lawyer or a scumbag who tries to monkey with the judicial process by telling unfavorable witnesses to scram.

But the bottom line is: this indictment is a joke. If McCrum is as smart as they say, he must know it’s a joke. Yet he pursued it anyway. It’s a shameful act and he deserves unrelenting and withering criticism for it.

well with the shooter in Ferguson, the Times offhandedly admits, the Community Relations Service, last seen with the clown in Kansas City, was also active here, preventing the facts of the case, from coming out,

Yeah. Like the lady who finds the whole, “I have to pay for this” part of shopping experience to be some sort of surprise. Then she fumbles around in her purse for twenty minutes.

Ladies, I love you to death. But on the way out of the store, if you’ve picked up something that wasn’t previously yours, you’re going to have to pay for it.

I was in a CVS pharmacy the other day simply because I thought I could duck in, buy a bottle of coke, and then head out. No. Nothing is that easy. There was a lady in line ahead of me who not only had never heard of the “I have to pay for this” part of the shopping experience. She then really needed to find her CVS customer card to get her customer bonus points. Naturally, she didn’t figure this out while she was waiting behind all the other customers ahead of her.

I just smiled at the clerk, put my coke down, walked out, and found a vending machine.

The person who has to fill out their store card application while you all wait.
The person who needs to write a check.
The person who fumbles arthritically in their change purse for the exact amount to the penny, then counts it out.
The coupon negotiators.

…“I want the tasting menu,” says one of the lady guests; the waiter regrets to inform that the whole table must partake (so as not to mess up the kitchen). The waiter departs for a moment while the couples decide what they want to do; springing to her defense, the gallant gentlemen assure that they are more than happy to also partake of the tasting menu. The waiter returns and takes their order, telling them (as my waiter had told my wife and I) that if you see something you like on the menu, just let him know and he’ll see if the chefs can work it in.

“I’m a vegetarian,” she says, and you can see the waiter (at the Argentinian steakhouse) stiffen a bit. “So if you could make all the dishes fish or vegetables, that’d be wonderful.” Confused—punch drunk, almost, at the audacity of the thing—the waiter stumbles away to consult with the chef.

I can see this woman reacting to her bill like a Yeti confronting fire for the first time.

Or the people in Kroger’s at the help desk doing complicated international foreign exchange transactions or renting carpet cleaning devices (that don’t work) when all I want to do is buy a lottery ticket.

I swear to Allah, one time I was at Marina del Rey and I was hosing off my friend’s boat after a day’s fishing. I splashed the adjacent sailbote a little and the owner came on deck and said; he actually said,
“You’re making my boat wet.”

It isn’t so much that they need to write a check that’s the problem. The problem is someone has to explain to them how to write a check. Every time. For sixty years. If they bothered to get the details down, we could all zip through the checkout line. But no. “Who do I make it out to?”

You’ve been shopping here since you were in high school. Who do you think you make the check out to? As a matter of fact, the check writer could have the thing filled out except for the amount. But, again, no.

19. I swear to Allah, one time I was at Marina del Rey and I was hosing off my friend’s boat after a day’s fishing. I splashed the adjacent sailbote a little and the owner came on deck and said; he actually said,
“You’re making my boat wet.”
Gazzer (42663b) — 8/17/2014 @ 4:53 pm

After 20 years in the Navy I can confidently tell you that boats aren’t for getting wet. They’re for chipping and painting.

It’s not for eating, which is what we thought when we tried to convince the supply corps guys to put some out so the aviators could get something to eat if they were flying dawn to dusk and missing the scheduled meal times.

“Oh, no,” the pork chop sez, “if we put it out, you’ll just eat it.”

Umm, yes. That was the point, we thought. We were wrong.

It turns out breakfast cereal exists to sit on shelves so the supply corps guys will pass inspection.

I have no idea if he was being paranoid or what. But he was deathly afraid if we ate the food, he wouldn’t be able to have the food to show the inspectors.

Steve57, my first day aboard (many decades ago) I grabbed a box of Raisin Bran for breakfast. As I was putting milk on it one of the “raisins” started walking away. For the remainder of the time I was in my breakfasts were confined to things that were heated (if not always “cooked”).

I’ve stood in line to get ham hocks that still had hair on it. It had been heated at some point, but never cooked. It wasn’t warm when I got it. The mess specialists had to break if free from the cold, congealed fat so they could slop it onto my tray.

Maybe somebody from the south can explain the ham hock thing to me. Because I’ve heard of using them to make soup, but not as a main course.

Then there was another memorable time when they were serving chicken. So I bit into it. I know the red stuff isn’t actually blood, it’s some sort of preservative. Whatever it was, it squirted what must have been 10 feet. It was completely raw on the inside. One of the mess specialists saw this and apologized. “Sorry about that,” he says, “do you want another one?”

I didn’t need to think about that one. No, I did not want another one.

A walking raisin would have been a nice change of pace.

I don’t know how you got through cruise, but I can sum it up in one word. Tobasco.

Thanks for the info. It was the first time (and the last time) I confronted ham hocks for dinner. Apparently it was the first time the mess specialists confront ham hocks, too. Neither one of us emerged from the encounter unscathed.

As far as hogs not being skinned, but scraped, I did not know that. I skin my hogs.

Some say you can’t skin a pig you must scrape it. Around here we reserve the C word for special occasions. I have found by letting the carcass cool for a few hours the loose greasy fat hardens and the hide takes on a leathery quality. Today’s 40 degree temps were just perfect for cooling your hog. After skinning the animal down just past the tail I placed a small rock about 1/2 the size a baseball under the hide and wrapped it tightly with a slip loop. I then let off the clutch on the tractor in super low range…

Much of the matter revolves around whether Melanie Little, who worked at Starlite Recovery Center in Boerne, was under subpoena and whether Alcala had dismissed her completely [...]
Prosecutors allege McCrum told Little afterward not to come back to court and to turn off her phone because she was not under subpoena.

He also suggested she leave the area, because “the DA was out for blood” and “wanted Taylor to be put away for a long time,” the contempt motion alleges.

McCrum’s lawyers argue the trial record shows Alcala dismissed Little and didn’t tell her she could be recalled.

In other words, he doesn’t dispute that he told a potential witness to make herself unavailable. Apparently there can’t be any question of that; he openly admits it. His only defense is that she wasn’t under subpoena at the time. I ask so f—ing what? That may get him out of the contempt charge, but it remains a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. Let’s suppose she was not under subpoena; still, the only reason he told her to disappear was because he thought the prosecution might call her. Deliberately preventing that is corrupt and unethical, whether or not it’s contempt of a specific court order.

It’s been years. So maybe my information is out of date. But when I was there, the A zone was the one place you could hunt just by buying a tag over the counter. You didn’t need to enter a drawing. Because it wasn’t a trophy deer area. Bow season started in July, and I think gun season began a month later. It was hot. Meat spoilage was an issue. I made sure to gut the animal and get the hide off as soon as possible. Nobody ever told me I shouldn’t deal with hogs the same way I dealt with deer. Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I plan on to keep doing it wrong if I am.

I can tell you this. Nobody ever complained about my meat being gamey. I went hunting with a friend who’s married to a SF bay area liberal. She was leery about the whole hunting thing. And then she ate the sausage. Now she keeps bugging us about when we’re going hunting again.

If game meat tastes gamey, it probably hasn’t been properly handled. And I can butcher an animal and turn it into a variety of cuts; I do that with deer. I just don’t bother with hogs.

“backstraps” of venison on a grill, best meat I have ever had, courtesy of son and his friend who shot and butchered it.

I had this bacon in a restaurant a few years ago that was incredibly good, had never had anything like it. I asked where they got it from, they said a meat distributor who only sells to restaurants.
Recently I was at a local meat market in rural Ohio and saw this stuff called “Boston Butt bacon” that looked like it. I bought it, but it is still in my parents freezer in Ohio awaiting my return.
Has anyone ever had “Boston Butt bacon”?

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence; in anticipation of a dispute unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material that a competent lawyer would believe has potential or actual evidentiary value; or counsel or assist another person to do any such act.
….
(e) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information
to another party unless:

(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely
affected by refraining from giving such information.

Comment No. 1 to this rule provides:

The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshalled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedures, and the like.

I’ve not read any of the briefing or other papers on the ethics issue, but I’d be surprised if these provisions aren’t under discussion in them. I would expect most other jurisdictions to have roughly parallel ethical rules for their lawyers, too.

When I said I’d expect other jurisdictions to have parallel ethical rules for their lawyers too, that’s because this is not new, nor unique to Texas, but something going back to the earliest canons of ethics in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence.

A lawyer of McCrum’s experience and credentials — which are, at least at first look, impressive enough, including a long stay at the U.S. Attorney’s office and a couple of brushes with BigLaw firms in San Antonio — must know these rules very well indeed. He must know the critical importance of staying well clear of even any arguable appearance of violating these rules. Witness-tampering, when proved, can, ought, and sometimes (but not often enough) is a kiss of death to the career of a serious trial lawyer.

McCrum, cast in the very best light for him, seems to have been tap-dancing on the razor’s edge of these rules from what’s being reported in the blogosphere. Even if it turns out that he’s vindicated as having not gone quite far enough over the line to get his bar card pulled or suspended for a time, nevertheless:

That’s simply not the kind of lawyer who ought to be anyone’s appointment as a special prosecutor on a public integrity matter.

I can see the witness asking him if she had to stick around and him telling her she did not if she was not under subpoena. And I would like to know how long the state interviewed her, and how many times they “went over her testimony”, before they put her on the stand to testify in the contempt proceeding, all the time she, herself, under threat of contempt and obstruction of justice.

43. “backstraps” of venison on a grill, best meat I have ever had, courtesy of son and his friend who shot and butchered it…

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/17/2014 @ 7:45 pm

I’m embarrassed to admit this, but what is a backstrap? I always called the the strip of meat running down the outside of the rib cage along the spine a backstrap. And the corresponding strip of meat you could only get to by getting into the rib cage the tenderloin. Or fillet. But, maybe like skinning hogs, I’ve been doing it wrong all these years. So I googled it, and found out other hunters are just as confused as I am.

I’m not recommending it necessarily but it’s a starting point. I agree with one of the commenters; BBQ sauce is getting nowhere near it no matter what you call it. You just don’t drown a good piece of meat in BBQ sauce. A lemon wedge, that’s about it. It’s like cocktails. If you’re going to drown it in club soda or orange juice or coca cola, just buy whatever’s in the well. Don’t order a call drink. I’ve proven this to at least my satisfiction, having dated spoiled girls who were convinced they could only drink Courvoisier and coke or something along those lines. I’d buy them rotgut, have the tarbender spill the mixer into the glass, and tell them it was Courvasier. They never knew.

Also, feel free to substitute butter for the olive oil. Or lemon pepper for the salt and pepper, and even the lemon wedge.

It’s done when it’s about as firm as the heel of the palm of your hand. You can test it by feeling it with two fingers of one hand. And then pressing the palm of your hand. When it feels the same, it’s done.

I always called the the strip of meat running down the outside of the rib cage along the spine a backstrap.

I believe that is exactly what the cut of meat was.
Thanks for the recipe, but the way he fixed it was so good I see no reason to do anything else,
but looking at the recipe, I think that is what he did MINUS the BBQ sauce. Keep it whole, olive oil and salt and pepper, nothing more, slice to serve.
Ever try to grill/roast a beef tenderloin this way?

Mark Pulliam is a friend and law school classmate with whom I served as an editor at the Texas Law Review in 1979-1980. He’s retired back to Austin after a long and successful career as a BigLaw partner with a California firm, and he’s written a nice piece for the National Review called Malicious Prosecution in the Lone Star State. Mark’s article confirms that the Congressman who agitated for McCrum’s (unsuccessful)nomination to become U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas was Austin’s Lloyd Doggett — by far the most rabidly partisan Democrat from Texas who’s still in any significant public office. The notion that Lloyd Doggett would support the appointment of a Republican to become U.S. Attorney is genuinely hilarious.

McCrum is the defense attorney for the Texas Democrats #1 money man (and one of the most powerful Democrat trial attorneys in the country) in a multi-million dollar corruption lawsuit. You are not hired by Mikal Watts unless you are not politically connected to Texas Democrats. Mikal C. Watts is one of the most partisan and well connected Democrats in the state of Texas.

McCurn was specially selected for this investigation. So I would suspect he was selected knowing that it could be claimed he was a Republican. (more important of course, are his connections to other lawyers)

Why do you invent fantasies and wild suppositions all the time?

Because the facts often don’t seem to fit so simple a narrative. Like with Ferguson. Al Sharpton, I am saying, is pro-crime, and getting money from criminal interests. This does not make sense to me as politics.

Bulldust, Sammy. There is no way to claim that he’s a Republican. That some jokers made a weak and ludicrous attempt doesn’t change that. And now you’re changing your story to “or non-partisan”. But your original claim was that he was chosen specifically because he could be painted as a Republican, and that makes no sense, because he can’t be. That Hutchinson and Conryn supported him for US Attorney just means they’re not partisan about such appointments. The evidence for McCrum’s partisanship is clear, and if the judge who appointed him was interested in the question he couldn’t have failed to know it. So your speculation fails. Yet again.